YU MENGYING v. SKYHIGH INVESTMENT LTD

YU MENGYING v. SKYHIGH INVESTMENT LTD

On the evidence viewed as a whole at the interlocutory stage the Court was satisfied Skyhigh had a good arguable case that Yu Mengying was a party/signatory to the Contractual Documents and there existed a real risk of dissipation of assets (including assets in her name controlled by her father); accordingly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 913
Parties
Plaintiff in HCCT 29/2019; Defendant in HCA 1434/2019: Skyhigh Investment Limited; 1st Defendant in HCCT 29/2019: Yu Jun; 2nd Defendant in HCCT 29/2019; Plaintiff in HCA 1434/2019: Yu Mengying; 3rd Defendant in HCCT 29/2019: Yujime Investment Management Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2020
Case Number
HCA1434/2019
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings (injunction Applications in Aid of Arbitration) / Interlocutory — Hearing of Summonses for Mareva/chabra Injunctive Relief and Decision on Summonses (22 May 2020 Hearing; Decision 1 June 2020)
Outcome
HCA summons granted in terms of paragraphs 1–3; injunction/freeze in place against assets at risk; costs order made against Yu Mengying for costs incurred after 8 October 2019 to and including 22 May 2020 with certificate for two counsel, remainder in the cause; injunctions against Yu and YJM continued.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Chabra Jurisdiction, Forgery, Shareholders Agreement, Asset Dissipation, Costs
Source Language
en
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure Injunctions Trust and Property Mareva Injunction Chabra Jurisdiction Forgery +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skyhigh Investment Limited

Plaintiff in HCCT 29/2019; Defendant in HCA 1434/2019

Yu Jun

1st Defendant in HCCT 29/2019

Yu Mengying

2nd Defendant in HCCT 29/2019; Plaintiff in HCA 1434/2019

Yujime Investment Management Limited

3rd Defendant in HCCT 29/2019

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings (injunction Applications in Aid of Arbitration) / Interlocutory — Hearing of Summonses for Mareva/chabra Injunctive Relief and Decision on Summonses (22 May 2020 Hearing; Decision 1 June 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant (Skyhigh) has a good arguable case that the 2nd defendant (Yu Mengying) was party and signatory to the Contractual Documents
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying Mareva or Chabra injunctive relief
  3. 3 Whether alleged signatures are forgeries such that interlocutory relief should be dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence viewed as a whole at the interlocutory stage the Court was satisfied Skyhigh had a good arguable case that Yu Mengying was a party/signatory to the Contractual Documents and there existed a real risk of dissipation of assets (including assets in her name controlled by her father); accordingly injunctive relief was justified and granted under the HCA summons; costs allocated against the Daughter for costs incurred after 8 October 2019 to the hearing with certificate for two counsel and remainder in the cause.

Court Disposition

HCA summons granted in terms of paragraphs 1–3; injunction/freeze in place against assets at risk; costs order made against Yu Mengying for costs incurred after 8 October 2019 to and including 22 May 2020 with certificate for two counsel, remainder in the cause; injunctions against Yu and YJM continued.

Orders

  • Grant orders in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the HCA Summons (injunctive relief against Yu Mengying)
  • Continue injunction and disclosure orders against Yu Jun and Yujime Investment Management Limited